Law, War and Economy: The Munitions Acts 1915-17 and Corporatism in Context

Abstract

It is now almost ten years since Jack Winkler's 'corporatist' analysis of Industry Act 1975 was published.' Many readers will recall essentials of his argument: that Britain was at that stage undergoing a long-term transformation in its economic system, and that unless a sudden change of direction was to take place (which, as we know, was signalled by advent of a Thatcher government in 19792), mixed-capitalist British economy would give way, in fullness of time, to a corporatist economy. Such a transition to a directive, in place of a facilitatory or persuasive, role in economic management by state entailed, moreover, demise of 'rule of law', and its replacement by mere enabling legislation drafted in vaguest of bland statements of explication of economic policy was to be left to bureaucratic administrators, albeit in light of responses generated within multitudinous corridors of tripartitism where top echelons of organized capital and labour conferred with government. As Winkler remarked, en passant,3 The directive role is most clearly exemplified by activities of State in a capitalist economy at war. Around time when corporatist debate was getting under way, a parallel debate was being conducted by labour historians, who were at logger heads over rival interpretations of Munitions Act 1915. As explained elsewhere,4 this was code of labour regulation enacted by Lloyd George as part of his programme to increase munitions for Army during First World War. Basically, one school of thought, reflected in work of James Hinton, viewed Munitions Act as a weapon in a capitalist class offensive launched against an insurgent shop stewards' movement in revolt against a 'servile state' which embodied the use of state power in direct service of private capital [and] establishment of compulsory labour among an unfree majority of non-owners for benefit of a free minority of owners.5 By contrast, another historian, Roger Davidson, saw Munitions Act simply as a desperate expedient to facilitate labour supply during war emergency, and as a measure which lacked repressive intent. Thus principal objective of